DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the lack of unity argument is in error. Applicant argues that Claims 24 and 41 require that the double pipe that exchanger is connected to the gas atomizer. This is not found persuasive because in Claim 41, the double pipe heat exchanger is not recited as being connected to the gas atomizer. Therefore, this requirement is not a shared technical special feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
Claim 31: “inner pipe [9] is connected to an exit of the grading station [14]”
Claim 35: “the particles bed”
Claim 39: “the gas extractor [38] is connected to the gas sprayer [6]”
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should only be one paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23 are cancelled, Claims 24-40 are as previously presented and Claims 41-46 are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language considering the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
The claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function.
The term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that.”
The term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is in claim as follows:
Claim
Means for or Step for
Functional Language
Structure or Material
Disclosure Support
35
n/a
“for purging”
“the particles bed”
“a purge”; (page 8)
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION - The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “the first end” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “the particles bed” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 24-27, 29, 30, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 1923414 A, based on the machine translation, and as evidenced by Sampson in TLEP International Journal of Chemical Engineering Research.
CN 1923414 A (CN ‘414) teaches a manufacturing facility for atomization preparation of orbicular magnesium powder as represented below in annotated Figs 1 and 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
640
1151
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
512
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to the installation in Claim 24, CN ‘414 teaches a gas atomizer chamber 7 (page 2) with a top and bottom as represented above. The atomization nozzle is represented above in the second figure and is near crucible 5 and is on top of the atomizer chamber 7. Liquid metal flows through channel 27. The gas “sprayer” is represented by the air inlet and air passage 29 and 30, respectively. An opening at the bottom of the chamber is connected to the conveying pipeline 72. The double pipe heat exchanger 8 has inner and outer pipes that are concentric, as evidenced by in Fig. 1. The inner pipe in CN ‘414 conveys Mg powder from the atomizer chamber 7 and the outer pipe conveys water from the water cooling system 33. The outer pipe is serially connected to the air inlet 29 and air passage 30 via the water cooling compressor 1 and buffer tank 2. The examiner notes that the limitation “being connected to” is a serial connection and does not exclude other parts between the claimed atomization chamber and outer pipe. CN ‘414 anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 25, the classifier and collection tanks read on the claimed grading station.
Regarding Claim 26, the inner pipe sends Mg powder to the first heat exchanger 11 and classifier 10. An air pressure balance tank 21 relates to the classifier 10, through line 211, compressor 1, and to the crucible 5, which reads on pneumatic line.
Regarding Claim 27, the inner pipe includes gas from atomization chamber 7 as represented above by the oval.
Regarding Claim 29, the inner pipe of the double heat exchanger 11 is connected to a first end as represented above.
Regarding Claim 30, the inner pipe of the double heat exchanger 11 is connected to the classifier by a second end.
Regarding Claim 38, the sidewall of the atomizing chamber 7 is installed with a circular rupture disk (page 5), which reads on a gas extractor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35-37 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 28, 31-34, 39, and 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 28, CN ‘414 does not suggest a transport gas inlet adjacent to the bottom of the atomization chamber. CN ‘414 teaches the transport gas inlet is at the top of the chamber as represented by 71.
Regarding Claim 31, CN ‘414 does not suggest that the inner pipe is connected to an exit of the grading station by the first end of the double pipe heat exchanger 8 as claimed. CN ‘414 teaches the second end of the double pipe heat exchanger 8 is connected to the grading station or classifier 10.
Regarding Claim 32, CN ‘414 does not suggest the outer pipe of the double heat exchanger 8 is connected to the gas sprayer represented by 29 and 30. CN ‘414 teaches the outer pipe of the double heat exchanger 8 is connected to the water cooling system 33.
Regarding Claim 33, CN ‘414 does not suggest the outer pipe of the double heat exchanger 8 is connected to an exit of the grading station as claimed. CN ‘414 teaches the outer pipe of the double heat exchanger 8 is connected to the water cooling system 33.
Regarding Claim 34, CN ‘414 does not suggest the outer pipe is connected to a gas regulator. CN ‘414 teaches the outer pipe of the double heat exchanger 8 is connected to the water cooling system 33.
Regarding Claims 35-37, CN ‘414 does not suggest a purge in the atomization chamber as claimed.
Regarding Claim 39, CN ‘414 does not suggest a gas extractor is connected to the gas sprayer as claimed.
Regarding Claim 40, CN ‘414 does not suggest a gas extractor is connected to the outer pipe as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/Tima M. McGuthry-Banks/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights